G.R. No. 140690 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. HON. NAZAR

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.' and that the same has, on November 13, 1998 become final and executory and is hereby recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments." [2] On July 15, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment on the ground that the entry of judgment was premature since petitioner had not yet received any resolution from the Court of Appeals resolving petitioner's motion for reconsideration. In a Resolution dated November 5, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment, thus: "Petitioner through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion (to recall entry of judgment), alleging that `OSG has not as yet received any resolution relative to its Motion for Reconsideration dated July 23, 1998.' The motion is without merit. The Division Clerk has submitted the following report, dated October 27, 1999: `The record shows that the Resolution dated October 20, 1998 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was received by the Office of the Solicitor General on October 28, 1998. Furthermore, the Resolution dated May 5, 1999 authorizing the issuance of the entry of judgment was received by the OSG on May 13, 1999.' WHEREFORE, the motion (to recall entry of judgment) is DENIED." [3] Hence this petition wherein petitioner insists that the Court of Appeals decided a question of substance in a way which is not in accord with law and the applicable decisions of this Court by- "I Depriving petitioner of its right to due process in denying the Motion (to Recall Entry of Judgment) without giving petitioner any chance to prove that it did not indeed receive any Court of Appeals' resolution resolving the pending Motion for Reconsideration dated July 23, 1998. II Dismissing the petition for certiorari thereby allowing respondent de la Victoria to post bail in a capital offense (murder) despite the fact that the evidence of guilt against the latter is strong. III Dismissing the petition for certiorari for failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration with the court a quo, notwithstanding the doctrine that such motion for reconsideration is no longer necessary when urgent relief is sought and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." [4] In the instant petition, petitioner objects to the entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals which in effect dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari with finality. Petitioner claims that the entry of judgment is premature considering that petitioner allegedly did not receive the October 20, 1998 Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying its motion for reconsideration. It is the theory of petitioner that since it did not actually receive said resolution, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 2, 1998 dismissing its petition for certiorari, did not attain finality. The entry of judgment, petitioner opines, should then have been recalled based on these pertinent portions of Sect